by Gary Farber
In Pottery Barn Libya, Part 1, I began explaining the situation in Libya. Now, more, and what America and NATO should do.
The tactical day to day sway of battle does not matter, save to those brutally slaughtered in it, and suffering from it. Suffering greatly.
What matters are the choices America and Europe make.
Naturally, Joe Lieberman and John McCain want bombs away, all-out regime change. Nothing makes John McCain happier: Back on the Battlefield: How the Libya debate snapped John McCain out of his 2008 funk—and into a fresh fight with Obama.
John McCain has never met a country he wouldn't like to bomb:
[...]
McCain, who insists on visiting Iraq and Afghanistan twice a year, often favors a muscular approach to projecting U.S. military power but is wary of entanglements with no exit strategy. The old aviator, who had both arms repeatedly broken in a Hanoi prison camp, says that experience has “also given me a sense of caution in light of our failure in Vietnam.” While McCain opposed the U.S. military actions in Lebanon and Somalia, he is sympathetic to humanitarian missions—and would even consider sending troops to the war-torn Ivory Coast if someone could “tell me how we stop what’s going on.”
Pressed on when the United States should intervene in other countries, McCain sketches an expansive doctrine that turns on practicality: American forces must be able to “beneficially affect the situation” and avoid “an outcome which would be offensive to our fundamental -principles—whether it’s 1,000 people slaughtered or 8,000…If there’s a massacre or ethnic cleansing and we are able to prevent it, I think the United States should act.”
McCain: bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Bombs away. "There will be other wars."
McCain: "We are all Georgians now."
Tough guy Anthony Cordesman naturally wants to fight. Unsurprisingly, he used to be national security assistant to Senator John McCain.
Cordesman, who has, see previous links, always been deeply wired into the militarist networks of the Washington, D.C. village of talking heads and millionaire journalism, has a (surprise!) widely-quoted piece advocating we (surprise!) go all in.
Let's not.
[...]
"The truth is, time isn't on anybody's side yet," said Anthony H. Cordesman, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "If Kadafi can prevent the east from getting oil, he can consolidate power and outwait the rebels."
Over time, the world might lose its enthusiasm for challenging Kadafi. "Interest flags, support flags and you don't get the military backing," Cordesman said.
Senator Lindsay Graham also wants to attack, of course:
[...] "The idea that the AC-130s and the A-10s and American air power is grounded unless the place goes to hell is just so unnerving that I can't express it adequately," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. "The only thing I would ask is, please reconsider that."
Cordesman is in the Christian Science Monitor:
[...]
“From a Libyan viewpoint, dragging the country into a long political and economic crisis, and an extended low-level conflict that devastates populated areas, the net humanitarian cost will be higher than fully backing the rebels, with air power and covert arms and training,” writes Anthony Cordesman, national security expert at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a commentary Wednesday on the CSIS website.
A middle path between regime change and the status quo?
Mr. Cordesman says that the international political environment precludes the US, as it does NATO, from openly adopting “regime change” as its Libya policy. But he says that, given the alternative of an “unstable stalemate” in which civilians could suffer “for months or years,” something he calls a “quietly escalating regime kill” is the best option.Among the essential elements of such a policy would be stepped-up airstrikes on Qaddafi forces and weapons, arming the rebels, sending in teams of Special Forces to guide coalition airstrikes (at Qaddafi assets and away from civilian populations), and fully enforcing United Nations sanctions to deny Qaddafi funds and supplies.
Cordesman acknowledges that Obama may have already approved some steps covertly. Indeed, administration officials quietly confirmed last week that the president OK’d dispatching CIA operatives to Libya to provide intelligence on the rebels and to help guide airstrikes.
The intel on the rebels – who they are and to what degree, if any, they are infiltrated by elements of Al Qaeda – will form the basis for Obama’s next important decision concerning Libya: whether or not to arm the rebels, either directly or through third parties.
[...] Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington, said Wednesday that "essentially, the no-fly zone is not going to succeed." [lots more]
[...]
"The fact is, day by day, we're going to confront the reality that a no-fly zone is probably a misnomer," said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If this structure can't stop Gadhafi's ground forces, then it fails."
"If we want to basically get rid of the regime, then we have to go much further and attack Gadhafi's centers of power and land targets," Cordesman said.
USA Today. Bloomberg News. MS-NBC.
You name a mainstream media outlet, and they've all gotten Tony Cordesman's memo:
Libya: “No Fly” to “Unstable Stalemate” or “Regime Kill?”
That's right, you have three guesses which he's for. Who wants to be a winner?
And Tony is ready with some good quotes, and is in everyone's rolodex.
Cordesman is the One Man Army Corps.
Not particularly re-imagined.
Let's go back to Jason Pack, from Pottery Barn Libya, Part 1, and look further at who these rebels are.
The next most organized units are those composed of bearded men with Islamist leanings. These fighters are likely to be from certain cities -- most famously Darnah -- and of certain backgrounds, such as unemployed men with university degrees. Some have attended Salafi seminaries; a smaller proportion have trained together secretly in Libya. A minuscule inner core fought in Afghanistan alongside Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and created the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) upon their return to Libya in the early 1990s. That group's raison d'être was to violently overthrow Qaddafi. After failed putsch attempts at the end of the 1990s, the Libyan state effectively crushed and co-opted the LIFG during the 2000s. Over the last five years, prominent former LIFG leaders have renounced their previous ties to al Qaeda and articulated an innovative anti-extremist Islamic theology. As the Wall Street Journal's Charles Levinson, who has met with prominent former LIFG elites in Darnah, has reported, "Islamist leaders and their contingent of followers represent a relatively small minority within the rebel cause. They have served the rebels' secular leadership with little friction. Their discipline and fighting experience is badly needed by the rebels' ragtag army."
Although hard-core Islamists are likely to remain bit players politically in the rebel movement, it would be unrealistic to expect Islam not to play a significant role in post-Qaddafi Libya. Much of eastern Libya remains traditional and religiously conservative. Adherence to the Senussi Sufi order served as the defining social, religious, and political lodestar of the Cyrenaicans from the mid-19th century until 1969, after which point Qaddafi suppressed them. Indeed, because Qaddafi excluded all conservative Muslim sensibilities from having a say in politics after 1969, Muslim groups must be granted their rightful seat at the table from now on.
Islam has always served to unite disparate tribal, social, and regional groupings in Libya. In Qaddafi's wake, assuming he falls, we can expect moderate Islam to be a key rhetorical factor in both popular discourse and politics. This should not frighten Western observers, as the use of Islam as a uniting, stabilizing factor will be a bane to jihadi recruitment efforts.
Should we worry about those "al Qaeda flickers"? Ever-alarmist Con Coughlin inevitably thinks so! (Coughlin has always been a mouthpiece for rightwing elements of MI6.)
Certainly Qadaffi keeps claiming we should but there's little evidence, as David Zucchino reports: Rebels in Libya insist they're no fans of Al Qaeda.
Col. Moammar Kadafi has depicted this coastal city of squat concrete homes and graceful blue harbor as the staging ground for an Al Qaeda takeover of Libya.
A radical Islamic caliphate, Kadafi claims, is based in Derna, inside rebel-held eastern Libya, and is directing the uprising against him.
That characterization draws a belly laugh from Mabrouk Salama, an Irish-educated chemistry professor who serves on the rebel leadership council in Derna."Al Qaeda? Here? Ha!" Salama said, shaking his head. "It's just Kadafi's way of trying to scare America."
[...]
It is impossible for an outsider to discern the motives, intrigues or heartfelt beliefs of Libyans in cities like Derna, which was sealed off from the outside world for four decades under Kadafi. But appearances, at least, do not suggest a deep Al Qaeda presence here.
Zahi Mogherbi, a retired political science professor in Benghazi who wrote a research paper on radical Islamic influences in Libya, said 63 men from Derna and 23 from Benghazi were among 120 Libyans who went to Iraq in 2006 and '07. Calling those numbers "fairly insignificant" in a nation of 6.5 million, Mogherbi said radical Islam had not taken root in Derna or anywhere else in eastern Libya.
[...]
"I have not seen any doctrinal movement to espouse any radical brand of Islam," he said, describing Derna as moderate and progressive by Arab standards.
"It would not be tolerated," Mogherbi said. "The people are rebelling against a dictatorship. They will not substitute this dictatorship for a radical Islamic dictatorship."
Leaders of the 15-member opposition council here say that only about half the local men who went to Iraq even survived the war, and that the rest now support the rebellion against Kadafi. Few actually had contact with Al Qaeda or returned bent on radicalizing Libya, they say.
"They're the same as us: revolutionaries who want to get rid of Kadafi and bring democracy and freedom to Libya," said Moftah Mahkrez, a member of the Derna opposition council. "This is Libya, not Afghanistan."
Anis Mahkrez, the friend and follower of Hasadi, said Al Qaeda's philosophy was alien to Libya and had little appeal here. He said Hasadi had joined the fight to depose Kadafi and that he reported to the rebel council.
[...]
Rebel leaders here hardly look or sound like Al Qaeda operatives.
Salama, who was jailed under Kadafi and said he holds a doctorate from the University of Dublin, was dressed in a pinstriped business suit. Except for a neatly clipped mustache, he was clean-shaven.
Moftah Mahkrez, 44, a businessman, wore a blue blazer and designer jeans. Brother Anis, 48, who was jailed for five years by the Kadafi regime, wore a stylish black tracksuit.
Anis was once a well-known soccer player. Photos of the brothers in soccer uniforms adorn the home they share in downtown Derna.
Anis nodded vigorously when his brother said he and fellow council members controlled the Hasadi militia that includes Anis.
"My brother is loyal to football, not Al Qaeda," Moftah said.
Moftah described extremists who went to Iraq as poorly educated young men weary of living in Kadafi's police state. "Now they need pencils and paper, not Kalashnikovs" rifles, he said.
Mogherbi, the Benghazi professor who advises the rebel national council, said radical Islam provided a natural outlet for young men living under Kadafi's dictatorship.
"Their radicalization was a reflection of their antagonism toward the Kadafi regime and his neglect of the east," Mogherbi said. "Now that Kadafi no longer controls the east, there is no appeal in this radical form of Islam."
In Senate testimony last week, Navy Adm. James Stavridis, commander of NATO forces, described "flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah" influence in Libya. But he said there was no evidence of "significant Al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence."
In Benghazi, the rebels' political leadership is dominated by Western-educated lawyers, doctors, businessmen and academics, along with several former Kadafi ministers or diplomats.
Mustafa Gheriani, a rebel spokesman who earned a master's degree from Western Michigan University, says Al Qaeda will try to take advantage of the chaos in Libya. Western-led airstrikes and missile attacks against Kadafi's forces are a bulwark against extremist overtures to young Libyan men, he said recently.
But that could change if U.S. and Western support fades, Gheriani warned. Rebel fighters might be persuaded that radical Islam is the best way to overthrow Kadafi, he said.
"They would align with the devil to get rid of this guy," Gheriani said.
Reasons for concern? Of course. Alarm? Not for now.
In any case, the Islamists, like the army defectors, don't comprise the bulk of rebel fighters. The most prevalent form of unit organization is ad hoc: a few brothers or friends sharing gas money, a few rifles, a rebel flag, and a pickup truck. Occasionally, whole villages or subsections of tribes have joined the rebels as a semicoherent unit. Yet even then, village headmen or tribal sheikhs do not appear to be leading or orchestrating the fighting. In fact, military leadership at the front, inasmuch as it exists, is entirely spontaneous. In late March, for example, the top military brass in Benghazi strongly advised the fighters not to push past Ajdabiya when it was retaken due to coalition airstrikes. The fighters did not obey orders and were quickly routed by Qaddafi's counterattacks.
Indeed, it is nearly impossible to imagine that the revolutionaries can defeat Qaddafi by military force alone. Lacking an effective chain of command or training, they have not yet learned to employ guerrilla tactics, siege tactics, or any formal coordinated military maneuvers. Arming the rebels with more sophisticated munitions will not help them congeal into a coherent fighting force. Training them might help, but it would take too much time.
The best hope for the rebels is that the Qaddafi regime crumbles from within -- a distinct possibility as key defections, daily hardships in Tripoli under international siege, and Qaddafi's diplomatic blunders all progressively demoralize his supporters. So far, coalition air power has been crucial in keeping the rebels alive long enough that Qaddafi's forces may self-destruct. But merely preventing slaughter and a rebel defeat is not enough. Now that the no-fly zone has fulfilled its key humanitarian and strategic mission, it is time for the coalition to shift gears. As Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, puts it, "Precisely because it is unlikely that the rebels will be able to militarily defeat Qaddafi even with increased coalition air support or more arms, Western and Arab countries can best help the rebels through politics, diplomacy, and propaganda -- all of which, if employed with savoir-faire, may tip the scales away from Qaddafi."
Helping the rebel political leaders effectively requires understanding who they are and how the Libyan uprising began. [...]
Exactly.
[...]
Youth activists were quickly joined by lawyers, judges, local administrators, and technocrats who opposed Qaddafi's repressive response to the protests. Many of these individuals were previously government officials or consultants who had become increasingly disillusioned by the failure of Libyan détente with the West to produce genuine political reform at home. On Feb. 27, the most prominent among them banded together in Benghazi to form the Transitional National Council (TNC). The TNC has gained legitimacy as grassroots committees have sprung up across eastern Libya to select local town notables, who have in turn endorsed the TNC. (Ironically, this practice is akin to Qaddafi's ideology of "direct democracy" with its imperative for the creation of local Basic People's Congresses.)Thus, what began as a youth revolt has been taken over by reformist regime technocrats and defected diplomats, who are the only groups capable of representing the rebels to the outside world. The TNC top leadership has extensive experience interfacing with Western governments and the international business community. The rest of its members were deliberately chosen to represent the various major factions of the opposition. It includes relatives of the former Libyan king, human rights lawyers, former Qaddafi intimates upset with the slow pace of reforms, conservative Muslims who are against al Qaeda, pro-Western businessmen, technocrats with American Ph.D.s, and representatives for women and youth.[...]
Revolutions eat their young. Ask Alexander Kerensky, say. Look to the French Reign of Terror.
Potential problems? Various:
One potential shortcoming of the rebels' current political structure is its heavily Cyrenaican, Arab, and elite makeup. If the rebels succeed in overthrowing Qaddafi, they will face enormous pressure to rapidly incorporate new players from western Libya, the Libyan diaspora, and the Berber, Tuareg, and Tabu ethnic groups. Simultaneously, they would have to focus on the social and economic issues that concern the youth and the unemployed, not merely those of reformist technocrats. Most crucially, after a hypothetical rebel victory the predominantly Cyrenaican fighters will no doubt clamor for their place in the sun as the saviors of Libya. It would be highly inappropriate for outside powers to attempt to micromanage or pre-empt the delicate evolution of the representative structure for the new Libya.
Exactly. We don't want to own the Pottery Barn of Libya. We can't try another Paul Bremer. The last one didn't work out too well.
We're still in Afghanistan, still mired, and things are getting worse.
Two hours ago in Iraq: "Iraqi officials: 6 killed in bombings, assassinations in Baghdad."
Hardline Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr mobilized tens of thousands of followers Saturday, using the anniversary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime to issue a warning to American civilians as well as soldiers that it was time to go.
[...]
Far from Baghdad's Firdous Square, where US Marines helped Iraqis bring down Saddam Hussein’s statue in 2003, the cleric’s supporters marched from Sadr City to Mustansiriya Square, near a major university in northeast Baghdad. Black smoke rose from the square from the burning American flags, and protesters set up a grisly display of Americans in business suits being burned in cages.
“We are time bombs,” the protesters chanted between a choreographed wave of young men dressed in the satin colors of Iraq's flag.
[...]
Asked whether that meant that the Sadrists were opposed to even a US diplomatic mission here if US forces were gone, several officials said the Sadr movement opposed any expansion of the US civilian presence here and considered the embassy the headquarters for the occupation.
US Ambassador James Jeffrey told reporters April 1 that the embassy, already the biggest in the world, planned to double in size next year to 18,000 personnel. That would include security, support staff, and diplomatic offices outside of Baghdad.
Sadr ended his message by calling on all his followers who could to register at the political party’s offices to engage in an open-ended protest until the Americans left.
Most Iraqis are deeply cynical about US intentions here.
“Iraq is a very rich country,” said Sabah al-Amiri, a government employee who came out to the protest. “Logically, I can’t believe the Americans will leave and ignore these interests easily.”
In the complex political climate here, the countdown for US forces to exit Iraq has placed the United States in a bind.
How many more countries can we afford to occupy? How many more Muslim lands do we want to invade?
Libya? Pack:
Amid reports that personality clashes may be enveloping the top TNC leadership, I remain reasonably hopeful that the TNC will be able to successfully incorporate most elements of Libyan society and that political infighting and factionalism can be kept to normal levels. Libya is an artificial colonial creation. But unlike other colonial entities, it lacks the social fissures and historical grievances that have led to sectarian or ethnic violence in places like Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The idea that a civil war might ensue between east and west after Qaddafi's departure is overly pessimistic. Paradoxically, as Qaddafi repressed so many of Libya's social groups other than the Qadhadhfa and Magarha tribes, it is foreseeable that all the former out-groups will be able to strike a rough consensus about building a post-Qaddafi Libya.
The rebels appear to be hard at work in paving the way for this new Libya. They insist that they have organized secret cells in the country's west, a plausible claim given Qaddafi's evident unpopularity in towns like Misrata, Zintan, and Zawiyah. And even though tribesmen of the Magarha and Qadhadhfa will probably stick by Qaddafi and fight on until the end, other more urban and technocratic pillars of the regime are likely to wither if the major Arab and Western players give the TNC more effective support.
But that support should primarily be political, not military in nature. The Western and Arab allies are beginning to recognize this, yet more sophisticated and high-level efforts are urgently needed. Prominent defectors like Moussa Koussa should be harnessed for all their propaganda value and asked to speak out against Qaddafi on Arabic satellite TV. Additionally, the coalition could help rebel leaders voice their cause to their potential comrades in Qaddafi-controlled western Libya. Qatar has already set up a satellite channel for the rebels; more countries should give them airtime, funding, and more diplomatic support. French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- who has recognized the TNC as the legitimate government of all of Libya and seems the most politically committed of Western leaders -- could extend another invitation to Mahmoud Jibril, the rebels' de facto foreign minister, this time to the Élysée Palace, granting him international prestige and a platform to ask for more specific assistance.
Moral power, not firepower, is what will ultimately defeat Qaddafi. The fighters are the heart and soul of the Libyan revolt, but they will never be able to lead it. Savvy diplomatic support and a little bit of good fortune could very well produce a tipping point over the next weeks or months. Until then, the international community must not take its eye off the ball as other crises emerge in the Arab world or the situation on the ground appears to become stalemated. Libya's future depends on it.
If we "Regime Kill," we're in the same damn place we are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And Obama has a mini-AUMF of his own from his Office Of Legal Counsel. Obama has accomplished little in dismantling the legal regime of George W. Bush, even if John Yoo isn't around to advocate some nice boy's testicle-crushing.
Moreover, Libya is awash in arms. Peter Bouckaert warns:
[...]
Libyans are extraordinarily welcoming people, and they don't seem to mind when I poke my nose into the backs of the battle-ready pickups at the front line and snap some pictures of the weapons and munitions the rebels are carrying. Even at the military bases and weapon depots under rebel control, a few words of introduction normally led to a warm welcome and a tour of the facilities. That is, if there is anyone guarding the facilities in the first place. When I went to the main military weapons depot in the contested town of Ajdabiya on March 27, just after Qaddafi's forces had fled the city and rebels were still busy celebrating their victory, I had the entire base and its 35 munitions bunkers, stacked to the rafters with weapons, all to myself for several hours.
What we found was shocking. Qaddafi's weapon stocks far exceeded what we saw in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein; some of the weapons, such as the surface-to-air missiles capable of downing a civilian aircraft, now floating around freely in eastern Libya are giving security officials around the world sleepless nights. After I began circulating some of the pictures I had taken, I began getting anxious calls from arms-control officials, asking for more details about what I had seen. There is good cause for U.S. and European officials to worry -- there are rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, and artillery shells full of explosives that can easily be refashioned into car bombs.
[...]
Among the weapons of greatest concern to Western security officials is the SA-7 "Grail" surface-to-air missile, a Soviet-designed, heat-seeking, shoulder-launched missile designed specifically to shoot down low-flying planes. The SA-7 -- basically a long green tube with the missile inside -- belongs to a family of weapons known as man-portable air-defense systems, or MANPADS. Although these weapons date back to the 1960s, they remain extremely deadly, especially against civilian planes without defense systems. Two SA-7 missiles were fired by al Qaeda operatives at an Israeli chartered Boeing 757 during a November 2002 attack in Mombasa, Kenya, narrowly missing the plane. During the past month and a half, we have seen literally hundreds of SA-7s floating around freely in eastern Libya. The SA-7s require assembly with a trigger mechanism and a battery cooling pack attached to the launch tube, and many of the launch tubes we saw were unassembled. However, some of the SA-7s had been fully assembled.
While the SA-7s have caused the greatest alarm among Western security experts, the rest of Qaddafi's extensive arsenal is nothing to laugh at. We found many varieties of guided anti-tank missiles, including the advanced laser-guided AT-14 "Spriggan" (known in Russia as the Kornet), which was reportedly used by Gaza-based militants one day ago in an attack on a school bus in southern Israel that critically injured a teenager. The Spriggan also served as one of Hezbollah's most effective weapons against Israeli tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. And there are tens of thousands of some of the nastiest anti-tank mines in the world in Qaddafi's warehouses -- nasty because they are made mostly out of hard-to-detect plastic and can be armed with an anti-lifting device that causes the mine to explode when attempts are made to remove it from the ground.
We also found thousands of 122-mm "Grad" rockets, which are used in a launcher that fires salvos of 40 rockets at one go and are capable of sowing destruction up to 40 miles away. The Grads were the Afghan mujahideen's weapon of choice during their deadly civil war in the early 1990s following the Soviet withdrawal -- they used these rockets to reduce Kabul to rubble. Eastern Libya is also home to tens of thousands of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, which are powerful enough to blow up a tank or punch a hole in a concrete building. We found tens of thousands of artillery, tank, and howitzer shells of various calibers, all loaded with high explosives easily convertible into car or roadside bombs. We even found HESH (high-explosive squash-head) shells, which are filled with plastic explosives -- a dangerous tool in the hands of terrorist groups.
The dangers we saw were not limited to the unguarded stockpiles of weapons. There are vast amounts of abandoned munitions and unexploded ordnance everywhere on the constantly shifting front lines along the coastal highway in eastern Libya. The recent airstrikes by international coalition forces on Libyan government military targets have added to the battlefield debris, leaving behind destroyed ammunition, vehicles, tanks, Grad launchers, and artillery pieces, often still loaded with munitions. Families, often with their children, have been visiting some of these strike sites, taking away potentially deadly mementos. Qaddafi's forces have added to the dangers by laying new minefields -- we discovered two such fields, containing dozens of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines, in Ajdabiya after pro-regime forces withdrew. Who knows how many more such minefields have been laid, only to be discovered when someone steps or drives over these concealed hazards?
Libya is a minefield.
If America haplessly wanders into it, we'll have more dead friends, brothers, sisters, parents, children.
None of us, Libyans, Americans, Europeans, Africans, anyone, should have to face that. Funerals are not fun.
Let's not have more than we need to, and let's not say we did.
The White House is reportedly struggling to form policy. We have Marines Gearing Up For Deployment Off Libyan Coast. There was no likely bloodbath prevented in Benghazi.
Alan J. Kuperman proposes Five Principles:
•Do not intervene on humanitarian grounds in ways that benefit rebels unless the state's retaliation is grossly disproportionate. This policy discourages both rebel provocation and state reprisals against civilians. In Libya, we should intervene no further unless Gadhafi's forces massacre civilians.
•Deliver purely humanitarian aid — food, water, sanitation, shelter, medical care — in ways that minimize the benefit to rebels. The United States admirably is delivering supplies to Libyan refugees across the border in Tunisia and Egypt. But we should ensure that relief sites do not become rear bases for Libya's rebels. If local governments are unwilling to patrol the refugee encampments, we should organize multilateral policing.
•Expend substantial resources to persuade states to address the legitimate grievances of non-violent domestic groups. Ironically, Obama has applied little pressure on Yemen and Bahrain, which slaughtered peaceful protesters, but he bombed Libya for responding to armed rebels. This sends precisely the wrong message to the Arab street: If you want U.S. support, resort to violence.
•Do not coerce regime change or surrender of sovereignty unless also taking precautions against violent backlash — such as golden parachutes, power-sharing, or preventive military intervention. If the White House insists on Gadhafi's departure, it should guarantee asylum for him and a continuing share of power for his senior officials and allied tribes. Simply demanding regime change could drive him to genocidal violence as a last resort, while the international community lacks the will for a preventive deployment of ground troops.
•Do not falsely claim "humanitarian" grounds for intervention driven by other objectives. If Obama is intervening because of Gadhafi's past misdeeds, rather than recent humanitarian offenses, he should say so publicly. Otherwise, the White House encourages further rebellions that aim to lure U.S. intervention by provoking retaliation.
Let's follow those. America needs to break its addiction to war. There is little enthusiasm in America for another war. The rebels are confused at best.
Jacob Zuma says that Gaddafi has accepted the African Union cease-fire proposal. Zuma claims optimism.
[...]
Zuma, who led a five-strong African Union (AU) delegation to the Libyan capital, said he was optimistic that a settlement would be reached. The delegation, minus Zuma, who was leaving Libya on Sunday night, will travel to Benghazi today to present the plan to the rebel opposition leadership.
Referring to officials of the regime, Zuma told reporters inside Gaddafi's compound at Bab al-Azizia that "the brother leader delegation has accepted the roadmap as presented by us". He also called on Nato to stop airstrikes on Libyan military targets "to give a ceasefire a chance".
Asked about the prospects of a deal, Zuma said: "I am optimistic."
The AU proposal is thought to centre on a negotiated political settlement between the Libyan regime and the rebel opposition, but no details have been disclosed.
However, opposition forces insist they will not consider any political deal that involves Gaddafi or members of his family retaining power.
Proposals put forward by the regime so far have included Gaddafi or one of his sons overseeing political change in Libya. It is far from clear how this gap could be bridged.
"The delegation ... will be proceeding to meet the other party, to talk to everybody and present a political solution to the problem in Libya," Zuma said. "We also ... are making a call on Nato to cease the bombings to allow and to give a ceasefire a chance."
The AU delegation, consisting of the presidents of South Africa, Congo-Brazzaville, Mali, and Mauritania, plus Uganda's foreign minister, landed at Tripoli's Mitiga airport after Nato gave permission for their aircraft to enter Libyan airspace. The planes were the first to land in Tripoli since the international coalition imposed a no-fly zone over the country more than two weeks ago.
Should the U.S. refuse all military options? No. Should we remove all air assets and send them home? No. We need leverage. There's no place for romanticization in peace and war. We need to be hard-headed, and sometimes people need to be killed so that others may live. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
There may be a role for military aid, overt or covert. There are, as President Obama has stated, many who can do that. There may be a role for future military involvement by American air power in Libya.
There are many possibilities. I am not a seer. I don't know what will happen. I don't know for sure what's best. The way to fewer deaths and less suffering is often unclear.
But, first: do no harm. Should the argument by OMAC Cordesman for striking hard to kill the head of the snake be listened to? Yes. Arguments should always be weighed and considered.
All I am saying, for now, is simply: let's give peace a chance.
Just give it a chance.
We can say:
[War] is instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands! But we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today!
We can always bomb the crap out of Libyans next week. They'll still be there. Tomorrow we may be "needing" to bomb rebels.
Our policy has been proclaimed to be:
[...] that Muammar Qaddafi is no longer fit to lead and should leave power. And we are obviously pursuing a number of different means, non-lethal means, non-military means, to help bring that about, to pressure Qaddafi, to isolate him, and to create an environment where the Libyan people hopefully will be able to create their own future with the leaders that they deserve and that they pick. And that's the endgame that we envision.
Let's try not killing today, and giving peace a chance.
UPDATE, 4.11.11., 1:49 p.m. PST:
C. J. Chivers gives a terrific example of how Libya being awash in weapons results in absurd adaptions with danger to all -- in this case, the mutating by rebels of air-to-ground rocket pods onto pickup trucks.
Imagine this war lasting a couple of years, or even six months, and more and more of Qaddafi's weapons stores being grabbed up, a la Iraq, and used by both sides (which may yet splinter into further factions, keep in mind! And then who are we fighting for, exactly?)! Libyan Road Warrior, Redux. And More Photographs From Eastern Libya.
America needs to break its addiction to war.
Gary, forgive me if my memory has slipped. But I seem to recall that in the case of Libya, America did not exactly charge in. In fact, the French and British were the ones pushing for intervention, and America looked more like it was being dragged along -- not unwilling, perhaps, but hardly enthusiastic, let alone leading the charge.
Granted, this is not the same as just refusing to get involved (absent the various criteria you suggest). But it is a long step away from our approach in the previous decade. And changes in the part of national culture that involves foreign military action, like changes to any other part of culture, generally come slowly and gradually. Since we haven't had one of the major traumatic events which can turn the national mood rapidly, that seem to be to be what we should expect here.
Posted by: wj | April 10, 2011 at 08:32 PM
On my phone, But, well thought through. Good post.
Posted by: CCDG | April 11, 2011 at 07:47 AM
Gary: "There was no likely bloodbath prevented in Benghazi."
Human Rights Watch and Juan Cole are among many respected authorities who believe that a human right disaster was imminent (for that matter, in process. Water and electricity were cut off, for example.) Now that the civilian massacre has been averted, it's easy to for critics to claim that it was never an issue.
When is the last time the United Nations authorized specific immediate action, and the United States acted to enforce the action with the help of other nations? And continuing enforcement is being done, not by the United States, but by NATO on the invitation of the countries intervening on behalf of the UN.
This action because of the limited and cooperative role of the United States was worth attempting. Arguably, it already has succeeded in averting the civilian massacre that was legitimately feared (obviously, no one can now prove whether or not it would have happened). Clearly, we hope for an outcome that will allow the Libyan people to live comfortably, without fear. We may not succeed. But the intervention of the UN was hardly attributable to an addiction to war.
Posted by: sapient | April 11, 2011 at 08:36 AM
IMO, level of enthusiasm is of very little import to events on the ground.
That aside; excellent pair of posts, Gary. The way I see it is this: if there's little to no rebel leadership, cohesion, command structure, etc. then there's absolutely no way that NATO forces can coordinate with them or even communicate with "them" (to the extent that there IS a "them").
This combination of disorganization and lack of realtime communication makes a NATO CAS role nearly impossible. About all that could be done is establishing a no-fly zone, and I was and am not optimistic that that could have any kind of salutory effect in the long term.
Much as I dislike Qaddafi, this was not a well-chosen fight.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 11, 2011 at 08:49 AM
Well, maybe it will be sufficient enough that Libyan forces run out of heavy ordnance (tanks, artillery, troop transports). Unlike small arms, these cannot be readily resupplied. That may not actually 'calm down' the conflict but it would hopefully reduce the speed and thus the urgency of action.
Posted by: Hartmut | April 11, 2011 at 09:13 AM
I continue to follow Juan Cole's take on the situation. He has another interesting post today. I hadn't been aware of the Qaddafi - Darfur connection.
Posted by: sapient | April 11, 2011 at 12:01 PM
something [Cordesman] calls a “quietly escalating regime kill”
Ooo, ooo! I know that one, you start with the joystick pointed straight down and then roll it to the right while simultaneously pushing the A & B buttons. If you do it correctly you can go straight to the next level!
Wait, what do you mean this isn't a video game? Someone should tell Mr. Cordesman.
Posted by: Ugh | April 11, 2011 at 12:26 PM
I'm not seeing it, Ugh.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 11, 2011 at 12:29 PM
I suggest reading the links in my Part one from
I'd have liked to have included a lot more links on a lot more elements of Libyan history, the current fight, many aspects, but, again, then I lose people for being too long and too many links.I'd also like to take time to argue that there's no remotely convincing evidence that Quaddafi was going to commit genocide or mass slaughter, or anything resembling Bosnia/Kosovo, but I unfortunately I don't have much time at present. I'd suggest that anyone who wishes to present a case that Quadaffi was, in fact, likely to kill tens of thousands of people, let alone the 100,000 people loosely spoken of by Obama Administration officials, give some convincing evdience that this was a credible likelihood or threat, because meanwhile people are being kiled, and that's not speculative.
I acknowledge this is a tricky subject, fast-breaking, complex, and there are an endless number of sources one can follow.
But Expert Authority is easily wrong in any and every direction.
I'm not unsympathetic to the humanitarian intervention arguments. I supported the Balkan intervention myself. I'm not a big fan of genocide.
I don't see much evidence, however, that Quadaffi has been doing "more" than suppressing revolt in indiscriminate and ugly manner, resulting in the deaths of many innocent lives in grossly brutal fashion, which is horrific, and perhaps does argue for an all-out war against him, but then you're up against the arguments I've made. Go all in? And then what?
And if not, then what?
And meanwhile, what's the actual evidence of intended genocide-level slaughter? None that I'm aware of. Let's talk numbers. If anyone has any cite something beside's someone's opinion, be it Juan Cole, or mine or Barack Obama's or someone at National Review Online, or anyone's personal opinion and prejudices, but actual facts and numbers suggesting or indicating that genocide was imminent, I'd very much like to read that cite.
Anyone?
"Human rights disaster" is an immensely vague term. It isn't genocide. What numbers constitute, specifically, a "human rights disaster"? 100,000 dead? 10,000? 1,000? 100?
And how many are being killed as a result of the fighting on both sides?
And, yes, this has to be weighed against what it was and is like to live under Quaddafi.
But this is the Iraq/Saddam Hussein argument all over again. Could we see some consistency? Is it possible to support the Libyan war and not retroactively declare that George W. Bush was right all along about Iraq?
Yes, it's hard to argue such complex questions in soundbites and short blog comments.
But these are the issues: complicated ones. And easy to be wrong about when one isn't a seer.
Which is also why I'm not going to (try not to) harshly condemn anyone in five or ten years for not having been a seer about Libya, one way or another, without knowing in advance what will happen, and why I'm not willing to completely dismiss for the rest of their lives those who got Iraq wrong.
But: first do no harm.
And then we can go to the chickenhawk argument. Is anyone who supports the Libyan intervention planning on enlisting next week?
Not an entirely fair argument, and not a practical one, of course, but: it's easy for any of us to throw up the "but you don't really care about the lives of the rebels" or "you don't really care about the lives of those being killed/suffering/fighting" arguments when we're all very distant from the terrible death and suffering, and yet not so distant that we couldn't, if we could afford it, get on a plane tomorrow, be in Libya in a couple of days, and pick up a weapon and start fighting alongside the rebels ourselves if we're really so jolly enthusiastic about their cause.
Alternatively, there's a part of me -- which would be helped if I could walk better, and even better if I could speak Arabic, but mostly it's the walking thing -- that has a temptation to ask people to send me funds so I could myself book a flight to get into Libya myself, and do some firsthand reporting.
It's not as if it's an impossible idea. Just challenging.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 11, 2011 at 01:15 PM
That's already long false.
And the A-10s and AC-130s were pulled, since they're not NATO assets, and we already have calls to bring them back as the most effective weapons (which is true, if you're going to go further into the fighting).
The U.S. is either being sucked into the quagmire, or it isn't. And if it is, you need to answer the question of how far in you're intending to go, how many troops you're planning to commit, for how many years, what's the endgame, and are we going to be occupying Libya in 2021?
If not: how will we avoid that? What's the plan? Hope for the best?
It's necessary because Obama declared that the U.S. would only be involved "for days, not weeks."Posted by: Gary Farber | April 11, 2011 at 01:19 PM
Hartmut:
Read the parts about just how many weapons Quaddafi has.Then I could go into more cites about all the support he's bought for decades all over Africa -- which is indeed why the rebels have cause to be doubtful about the impartiality of the African Union negotiators -- and all the mercenaries, particularly from Chad, but also, hell, Africa is awash in semi-trained, and certainly experienced, of a sort, fighters who work cheap, and Kaddafy (let's just use as many spellings as possible) has offers out all over, and the hiring is good, even though the medical benefits are poor, and pay is irregular, and administration a tad chaotic.
But I don't see Kadaffi (yes, I'm having fun) running out of heavy weapons any time in the next month or three. Nor oil. Nor money.
Cut back, yes. But there are, literally, many tons of all squirreled away. The regime has not been poor, nor shy about buying and storing heavy weapons.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 11, 2011 at 01:24 PM
For the pruposes of this thread just consider me as saying after each Gary comment, "what gary said". It will save a lot of typing.
Posted by: CCDG | April 11, 2011 at 01:49 PM
As Robert Farley explains, unsustainable rebel advances have set up a situation that is likely to lead to civilian massacres:
Posted by: Turbulence | April 11, 2011 at 02:21 PM
"....and yet not so distant that we couldn't, if we could afford it, get on a plane tomorrow, be in Libya in a couple of days, and pick up a weapon and start fighting alongside the rebels ourselves if we're really so jolly enthusiastic about their cause."
Love it! right on!
And, I have to agree with just about everything else you've said in parts 1 & 2. Nice work, Gary.
Whoever wins will have to sell us oil at the end of the day. That is all that counts strategically.
I am sure that, in the meanwhile, the cost of intervention would greatly surpass the cost of decreased petroleum production and even toying with that equation assumes that intervention could expedite a return to max production and favorable contractual arrangements. Such a thing should not be assumed; witness Iraq.
Part of the cost of intervention is the risk of selecting the losing side and f_ing up subsequent oil deals because of that.
Posted by: avedis | April 11, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Wonderful post.
Posted by: Scipio | April 11, 2011 at 10:50 PM
I don't see anything about genocide, or impending 100,000 deaths, or impending 10,000 people being slaughtered. I may have missed it.
If you could quote the exact phrases that you believe justify a war, I'd find that helpful. Thanks in advance.
I don't favor the notion of commencing bombing every time there's a black-out, or water cut-off.I've managed to live through those. I wouldn't have found bombing helpful.
YMMV.
Thank you for your kind words, Avedis.
I do find myself of mixed mind when I see so few comments.
On the one hand, the s-stirrer in me wants to get a good argument going.
The ego in me wants to see a long comment thread. And, heck, there were complaints not long ago that ObWi Was Missing The Boat without an up to date Libya thread. And I'd been trying to get one done for a couple of weeks or more.
But hardly any comments.
On the other hand, the more comments there are, the more I'd feel obligated to reply, and thus even less time to post.
So: mixed feelings. But I'll take what I can get, which is good, because it's all that's on offer.
I won't be launching air strikes against anyone who doesn't respond.
And if anyone doesn't recall, I'm kinda against genocide. So if that seemed in the making, I'd favor intervention to prevent it.
But I don't see any evidence, as yet, of that.
So far I've seen a lot of terrible violence. And a very terrible government.
I could also produce a list, as could anyone paying attention, of similarly terrible violence in a very long list of other countries, with equally terrible, or far worse, governments.
Anyone up for attacking Zimbabwe or Myannmar or Ivory Coast or Sudan or Somalia or more attacks in Yemen or Pakistan, or hey, how about Mexico?
Mexico says 28,000 killed in drugs war since 2006.
It's right on our border. Shouldn't we be sending in troops? We've had so much practice.
I could keep going.
If not: why Libya, and not the rest of the list?
"We've got to start somewhere" isn't sufficient. Neither are any others I've yet run across, but I do keep an open eye and mind, so by all means, if anyone wants to argue... any POV, hey, be my guest!
I'vePosted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 03:12 AM
Sapient, I'd like to direct your attention to this link I included: Did Obama avert a bloodbath in Libya?. I'm not going to embed the many links; click above to see the original full story, with links, please.
But some text:
Do you have further information on how these "100,000" people might have been killed?If anyone does, please do let me know. Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 03:28 AM
Sure, maybe "the rebels" will win because Qadaffi will quickly flee and the government will collapse.
Then what? What prevents factional fighting and tribal fighting and regional fighting?
Whose side are we on then?
Do we then occupy to prevent all that (hello, Iraq)?
Or do we then wash our hands, and say, oh, well, not that Khadafy is gone, it's okay if tens of thousands of people are now killed in internecine fighting over the next few years?
Or...? What's the plan for this? Hope?
Meanwhile, we're still all geared up about the Dread Threat Of Iran. And there's plenty of agitation on the right to invade and bomb Syria. And we should change the Hezbollah-dominated government of Lebanon. And those Eqyptian generals aren't apt to work out well.
Where does it all end?
Why are military tools the first to be reached for? When they aren't tools, but the lives of young women and men?
Who aren't playing video games.
Why? Why, because we have them all on the shelf. What a waste not to use such power!
Of course, we could have health insurance for everyone instead, and hell, buy every poor person in America a house, and pay off everyone's mortgage.
But that we can't afford.
Interesting priorities for saving lives.
I'd like to emphasize that the idea that there will be only two "sides" down the road is an optimistic one.Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 03:36 AM
Tony Karon.
How involved do you want to be in a civil war?
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 04:06 AM
Possible Libya Stalemate Puts Stress on U.S. Policy.
What's going to happen here are a lot of special operator doing training and infiltration and operations."Covert" operations we read about in the journals to the rescue!
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 04:09 AM
Truce Plan for Libya Is Rejected by Rebels. If you'd like to get into the business of agent-for-mercenaries, you have work waiting for you!
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 04:12 AM
As far as Mexico goes, the US could do (or could have done at least) something with comparatively little effort. But preventing the ongoing mass transfer of small arms across the border would require... TO VIOLATE THE SACRED RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE; TAKING THEIR GUNS AWAY, TURNING THE US INTO A FASCIST POLICE STATE, TRIGGER ARMA-GEDDON...eh...doing some background checks and allowing the comparision of data.
No chance of that.
To rethink the War on (some) Drugs would also directly undermine the cartels, save a lot of money, empty the prisons of non-violent offenders etc.
No chance of that either.
What is done instead? I hear there are now drones patrolling the border. Not (yet) armed with Hellfire to deter illegal immigration but that's maybe just a matter of time.
Posted by: Hartmut | April 12, 2011 at 04:54 AM
"I'd like to emphasize that the idea that there will be only two "sides" down the road is an optimistic one."
Yes. You are right. Good point.
"What's going to happen here are a lot of special operator doing training and infiltration and operations."
correct again.
"Anyone up for attacking Zimbabwe or Myannmar or Ivory Coast or Sudan or Somalia or more attacks in Yemen or Pakistan, or hey, how about Mexico?"
Perfect. Some people would be up for attacking those countries and some others as well, but they probably don't hang out around these parts.
"On the other hand, the more comments there are, the more I'd feel obligated to reply, and thus even less time to post.
So: mixed feelings. But I'll take what I can get, which is good, because it's all that's on offer."
It is usually disagreement or an exploration of alternative perspectives or even just a sense of a need to add nuance that compells comments. When you have crafted an irrefutably logical and accurate summation, what can anyone say in response (other than, "good job, thanks")? If you want to engage, maybe you should guest post this piece at some neocon blog. I think there might be one or two of these still up and running ;-)
Posted by: avedis | April 12, 2011 at 07:12 AM
Strategy is a plan; a means to an end, no? What counts strategically, then, all depends on what your priorities, your desired ends, are. If your priorities are oil, Libya would not necessarily be your point of focus. If your priorities are to boost up the price of oil, Libya (18th, volume-wise, on the list of oil-producing nations) might be a decent place to introduce uncertainty in the market, but not necessarily the most effective. If your priorities are averting humanitarian crises: again, maybe not the best & most pressing choice.
I'm wondering what our government's priorities are, here. Also: whether they have any that could be clearly expressed, or if they're only something vaguely in the direction of "we should do something". What our current level of transparency is telling me, to the extent that I've noticed, is "we should do something" rules. But that's assuming that we're being told what is really going on, which is not a given at all.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 07:57 AM
Gary, I read the Steve Chapman link, and realize that there are people denying that there would have been a massacre. (And, obviously, since it was arguably averted, there wouldn't have been evidence of it having happened.)
But there were certainly reports in February and March of hundreds of civilians being killed, and people being deprived of food, medicine and critical aid (in addition to electricity and water - not as blackouts, but as an ongoing deprivation). Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented atrocities (if you prefer murder by firearms to deprivation of necessities), but have said that much of the country is inaccessible to journalists.
The fact that the UN was convinced, along with many international agencies and experts that I have long been trusted, is a good indication that there were troubling indications of an imminent human rights catastrophe. The massive exodus of refugees, the fact that other nations were rescuing their nationals, that Doctors Without Borders reported trying to cope with "high numbers of injured people" even though they were generally barred from most of the country .... It's useful to browse the al Jazeera blog entries for the days in February and early March.
I understand that some people want photographs of corpses, etc., but that would be evidence that intervention came too late, no? There certainly were reports of ruthless things going on:
"7:30pm
The UN Security Council has begun urgent deliberations to consider imposing sanctions against Libya for violent attacks against protesters. The sanctions under consideration at Saturday's session include an arms
embargo against the Libyan government and a travel ban and asset freeze against Gadhafi, his relatives and key regime members.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is urging council members to take concrete action to protect civilians in Libya where some estimates indicate more than 1,000 people have been killed in less than two weeks.
7:15pm
The New York Times reports that Qaddafi forces were seen shooting from ambulances and using antiaircraft weapons against crowds, as protesters recount brutal tactics of Libyan regime.
"They shoot people from the ambulances,” said one terrified resident, Omar, by telephone as he recalled an episode during the protests on Friday when one protester was wounded. “We thought they’d take him to the hospital,” he said, but the militiamen “shot him dead and left with a squeal."
Reading al Jazeera's blog reveals scattered reports of scores of civilians here, scores there - no piles of corpses photographed though.
Of course, there are people who still deny the Holocaust - (a genocide that actually occurred, rather than one that was averted), so it's certainly easy to contend that, when lives were saved, they must never had been in danger.
Gary, you're apparently not moved by the fact that the UN, the only organization that legitimately represents the international community, is behind this mission. I find that quite persuasive. Obviously, the Texas Republican Party and others would disagree.
Silly of you to bring in unrelated issues such as the drug war and health care. Would have thought that it would be beneath you.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 09:32 AM
Silly of you to assess Gary as silly without the barest mention of why you thought e.g. discussion of tens of thousands of people killed in a country adjacent to ours, in the context of questioning what conflicts we ought to be involving ourselves in, to be silly.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Sapient,
While I am sure there were civilian casualties, the idea that a human rights disaster was imminent due to violent attacks against protestors was not the reason given. That reason would have applied to any number of countries at the time, before and since in the last several months.
The reason given was the impending attack on Behghazi. As Gary has aptly pointed out there was little, if any, justification for believing there would be any higher level of humanitarian disaster there than in any civil war zone, probably less than most based on Qaddafi's mode of retaking the towns he had retaken up to that point.
The UN's involvement is as unconvincing on determining whether there was a legitimate reason for the intervention as the African Unions involvement is on formulating a peace plan, except the African Union has more standing.
Posted by: CCDG | April 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM
"Silly of you to assess Gary as silly without the barest mention of why you thought e.g. discussion of tens of thousands of people killed in a country adjacent to ours, in the context of questioning what conflicts we ought to be involving ourselves in, to be silly."
Really? Do you think that the President and Congress are presented with a menu of wars to be involved in and choose based on what kind of cuisine they're interested in that day? Obviously (or maybe not, to you) there are different issues, problems, questions, urgencies, possibilities, strategies, considerations, etc., in every case, not to mention the very important consideration that in the Libya situation, the US is enforcing a UN resolution.
"While I am sure there were civilian casualties, the idea that a human rights disaster was imminent due to violent attacks against protestors was not the reason given."
Not sure what you're saying here. Qaddafi had major cities under siege. Placing cities under siege is a classic way for civilian loss of life to occur. Perhaps the case wasn't made with enough photos of corpses, but the situation was getting worrisome.
As to the UN, you're not convinced. I am.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM
" Do you think that the President and Congress are presented with a menu of wars to be involved in and choose based on what kind of cuisine they're interested in that day?"
Yes, each morning in the National Security Briefing.
Posted by: CCDG | April 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM
No, but we do have a certain amount of choice about what actions we involve ourselves in, no? I mean, "we" being the people who can actually make such choices, which of course does not include me.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 11:36 AM
OT, here's a video of a couple of air-to-ground missions. From the translated text, the first is against a light truck that carries missiles, and the second one is a weapons depot, which explains the secondary explosions. The secondaries are large enough that it looks as if they hit a decent-sized cache of ordnance.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 12:08 PM
"No, but we do have a certain amount of choice about what actions we involve ourselves in, no?"
Well, it depends first on who "we" is. I think when "we" is the United Nations Security Council, "we" usually have a lot of trouble getting agreement as to which country "anyone is up for invading" to use Gary's phrase. In this case, it was clear to many of the countries that we should be up for invading Libya. As to whether we, the U.S., is up for invading random places, I would generally say no (unless there's a national security threat or an ongoing war).
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Having a revolution topple a government can happen in a few days or weeks. But historically, that is not the usual case. (Anybody remember how long the American Revolution took? And how things went for the first year or two?) A group of rebels probably needs a year or more to sort out chains of command, and get a reasonably sized force trained up enough to be effective. The only reason a revolution can happen quicker is if a substantial part of the military decamps to the rebels.
I could see American involvement in Libya over the next couple of years being similar to French involvement in the American Revolution: constraining the old regime's ability to get resources to the battle, and perhaps a few people on the ground to help the rebels (ala Lafayette). That constraint could, fairly quickly (if probably not in a matter of days) reduce to a naval blockade, no-fly zone enforcement, and shutting off Qaddafi's oil revenues. Then let the rebels get themselves together and fight their own fight over time.
Not saying that things will necessarily go that way. But it is a scenario which seems more plausible than some I have seen written about.
Posted by: wj | April 12, 2011 at 01:03 PM
I don't think it was invasion that they decided on, was it? The UNSC resolution authorizing the no-fly zone had no dissenters.
That is: the US voted to act. That it was clear to most UNSC voting members that action was needed...well, I'm not sure what point you're making here. The UN has never made bad decisions? Or something else?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 01:09 PM
I quietly disappeared from there during the run up the 2006 election, when I became extremely uncomfortable being surrounded by posts with what I regarded as hysterical attacks on Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Democrats, liberals, the left, and so on.
No hard feelings, though. But I wasn't the best of fits.
Slart:
Can't tell for sure, yet, but at least some of it seems to have been Samantha Power being actually excessively alarmed by the genocide argument, and leaning too sharply towards "humanitarian intervention," combined with various bureaucratic pressures from France and Italy, generalized confused concern that we Do Something to Show Support for the Middle East Wave Of Freedom, and, hey, we've got all these shiny military assets, so what's the first thing to reach for? Air strikes!If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I still have emeritus status atPosted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Sapient:
I don't have much time for repeating myself. Is your argument that the U.S. should launch massive air campaigns against every country where "hundreds of civilians being killed, and people being deprived of food, medicine and critical aid (in addition to electricity and water - not as blackouts, but as an ongoing deprivation)," then?That's what you seem to be saying. If so, I don't agree. Do you have another argument? If not, could you explain why we shouldn't be doing the same with the other countries I listed (and, as I said, that was just for starters)? If not, what's your argument?
I've tweeted many of them, and read them all. Make your point, please?As for the UN, yes, the U.S. dominates, as do the other permanent members, and Russia and China abstained: you're begging the question. The U.S., France, Italy, NATO, and allies should launch attacks because they voted in the UN, and arm-twisted the Security Council, to launch attacks? That's circular.
I find it less distressing that the U.S. and NATO were able to get 1973. Have you read it?How about the official release on it?
Yes, I find that persuasive. You?Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 01:55 PM
Please clarify: yes, no, other? If "no," what, specifically, are your general criteria, with numbers, or other quantifiable measures so we can tell what general policy it is you are advocating.
Or put it in any terms you like: what general doctrine should the U.S. adopt to begin no-fly zones over countries?
I find many things worrisome. My first impulse isn't to launch air strikes.It's not even my second or third impulse.
I'd prefer you not imply I don't care about the Shoah, or genocide. I'd strongly prefer that.
Yes. Your argument is that the U.S. and NATO should launch air strikes in every country where more than 1,000 people have been killed in less than two weeks?Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 02:01 PM
CCDG:
To clarify, Congress doesn't get a daily national security briefing, and neither does the Congressional leadership, or any committee leaders. This was one of the objections to the intervention, by members of both parties, and I can give plenty of links: there was no consultation with Congress whatever.There were plenty of complaints from both Democrats and Republicans alike.
wj:
Yes.Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 02:04 PM
"I'd prefer you not imply I don't care about the Shoah, or genocide. I'd strongly prefer that."
I never said or implied that. What I don't understand is why you believe that there should be a formula for intervention based on number of people already dead. And, no, I don't believe in a formula, because it would be impossible to apply one based on the various circumstances that occur, and the wide divergence of opinions by various nations who, for their own reasons according to each scenario, would be in favor or against intervention.
Why I believe it was justified in this case was 1) there were cities under siege; 2) human rights and relief organizations (some of which I support and regularly donate to, therefore trust) believed that there was a humanitarian crisis because of the siege, had trouble getting medical care to victims, saw that food and essential medicine was not getting to civilian populations in the beseiged cities; 3) some substantial (but unverifiable because of lack of access) number of civilians had already been killed by airborne suppression of "rebels" (and protestors, and other people resisting Qaddafi's central government); 4) the crisis seemed bad enough for countries to be evacuating their citizens; 5) because of his history, many nations were convinced that Qaddafi was a menace; 6) Qaddafi was threatening his people (and although he didn't threaten them himself with bombing, he had used air bombardment against the rebels [protestors]).
And yes, the UN can certainly make bad decisions, but if it's making a decision in support of quelling a potential humanitarian disaster, one that the United States (reluctantly, but on principle) supports, I give it great credence. The UN is supposed to be the body making these decisions, and I'm glad it stepped up this time. It deserves support.
If you think it's more prudent to wait until 100,000 are dead, when there's a lot of evidence weighed by people who are experienced with similar situations that 100,000 people will soon be dead, fine. That's your opinion. I feel that it's justified to prevent a massacre when people and organizations I trust believe that a massacre is imminent, and are begging for military intervention. These people were not begging for intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 02:21 PM
UN:
And the Security Council President, and the not unimportant Permanent Member of the Security Council, a tiny country known as China? Yes, that's what "the UN" said.Let's perhaps not be selective as to what we think "the UN" was "persuasive" about.
More things than the devil lie in the details.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Sapient:
Please quote which sentences of any UN Security Council resolution support your assertion. Thanks!Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 02:28 PM
"Yes, that's what "the UN" said."
Wonder why they didn't veto it then.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 02:31 PM
I've previously asked you a number of questions. I've repeated them. You've failed to respond to them.
When you respond by answering the questions I've previously put to you, and these, I'll respond further. So far simply repeating yourself without being responsive. This isn't supporting an argument with any facts or responses to queries: it's repetitive assertion.
Please withdraw this assertion.Earlier:
Please name these people. Hae they posted to this thread? If so, please quote them. If not, whom are you referring to, by name, where have they said this, and what's the relevancy to what I wrote? Why do you keep demanding photographs? No one in this thread has mentioned photographs but you.And, again: you're asserting we should invade every country where there are "scores of civilians" dead? You want us to invade half the world?
Why do you not argue for us to invade Zimbabwe? Or Pakistan? Are you unaware of how many countries slaughter their citizens, or do you not care, or is there something special about Libya, or what is your general doctrince you are advocating?
Invade anywhere Sapient finds "worrisome"?
Cities remain under siege in Libya. Where do you draw the line at how far the United States military should go to relieve such seiges? Should we send in land forces to overthrow Quadaffi? How long do you suggest we occupy Libya? How do we not occupy Libya if we overthrow Quadaffi? What's your exist strategy?Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 02:37 PM
"Please quote which sentences of any UN Security Council resolution support your assertion. Thanks!"
Gary, I admire you a lot but don't be such a pedant. I was responding by paraphrasing your "up for invasion" rhetoric. The UN authorized creation of a no-fly zone and all necessary measures to protect civilians. It excluded the possibility of foreign occupation forces, so I didn't mean "invade" literally, and since that's not what's happening we need not banter about it.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 02:38 PM
"Where do you draw the line at how far the United States military should go to relieve such seiges? "
We draw the line at what the UN Security Council Resolution allows us to do, which doesn't include invading Libya.
"How do we not occupy Libya if we overthrow Quadaffi? What's your exist strategy?"
There are many leaders who are overthrown without foreign occupation. How do we not occupy Libya? By not occupying Libya. Exit strategy? Go home. We're not committed past enforcing a no fly zone.
Quit hectoring me what my "general doctrine" is. I have no duty to formulate a "general doctrine." I don't have one. I said that. I agree with what happened in the circumstances of this case, especially because of the rare event of a UN resolution authorizing action. I've written more about why on other threads. This situation presented us with the possibility of assisting other countries to protect civilians in a crisis situation, and doing so without invading, without occupying, and without even leading.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 02:54 PM
I've heard this reasoning before. I may have even used it before. Nowadays I'm looking askance at it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 04:19 PM
"I've heard this reasoning before. I may have even used it before. Nowadays I'm looking askance at it."
I'm just thinking that we recently had the worst president (possibly) in the history of the country. He incompetently invaded one country, and illegally invaded another based on lies, and a scheme that was cooked up by a bunch of neocons calling themselves PNAC. As a result of his disastrous wars, people now believe that all intervention of any kind is always wrong, even if it is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who are desperately asking for it, people whose pleas are supported by highly respected and politically neutral NGO's and aid organizations. We are all always suspicious now. We think everyone always lies in order to justify using military toys.
I'm just not there yet. The people and organizations who have been in favor of this humanitarian military intervention don't all have a history of jumping at the chance for war.
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 04:44 PM
I'm not sure if I am being included in this "we", but just to be clear: I am not suggesting anyone is lying.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | April 12, 2011 at 04:54 PM
Neither was Congress consulted in this.
You're saying that the President of the United states should be allowed to order the U.S. Ambassador or substitute representative to present a draft Security Council resolution, and that whatever passes as regards any military action should be followed, without consultation with Congress, because the resolution, which always has extremely vague weasel wording, precisely so every country can choose a different interpretation -- and would you like to go into some history on this, and if so, how much? -- doesn't get vetoed, therefore everything is hunky-dory?
Again, where do you draw the line?
There are appear to be three main possibilities here:
1) Either you simply like the idea of a no-fly zone over Libya, because you found news reports and stuff you've read "worrisome," and this is a special case where you can't describe any criteria for your reasoning, save that you personally like it.
2) You have some general principles.
3) Other.
I've invited you several times to outline either your reasoning behind 1 or 2, or present 3, and all you've done is go circular on saying that since the U.S. got a vague Security Council resolution passed, and you prefer to ignore what many of the members of the Council said about it, and because you believe a "civilian massacre" was imminent, but can produce no facts or cites to demonstrate any such case, you merely like the fact that Human Rights Watch and Juan Cole approve, then "critics" (whom you can't name) "claim that it was never an issue" (but you can't say where these claims were made), and unnamed "some people," who apparently are imaginary, "want photographs" (but you can't cite any such people), and therefore people reading your arguments should be persuaded... why, exactly?
Do you have a gerbil in your pocket? Or are you royal? Which people? Who? What statements do you have in mind?Can you name them, or are you just bringing up imaginary people, or what is the relevance of these unnamed people to anything written by anyone in this thread?
There seem to be at least four major possibilities:
1) You have specific people in mind who aren't me and who haven't posted to this thread, but have some reason you won't or can't name them.
(Maybe you just can't think of who you are thinking of, maybe... the possibilities are endless; it's up to you to say, not for me to speculate).
2) You don't have specific people in mind, and are generalizing based on... I don't know what.
3) You have me in mind, but prefer not to say so. (Why?: again, many possibilities; possibly you might recognize that, in fact, I've written none of these things, but there could be any number of other reasons: it's up to you to bother to say why.)
4) Other.
Do feel free to clarify.
Meanwhile, if you can't answer, you're engaging in classic straw man fallacy by refuting unnamed people you won't specify.
If you're not arguing with straw folks of your own creation, then I invite you to dispel this misunderstanding, and state who you are arguing with, where they said these things, and quote who and what you're arguing with.
If not, your choice. But I'll make hay with straw presented to me. I have an allergy to it.
And if you're going to speak on behalf of a "we," then I invite you to present evidence that you've been elected to represent more than yourself, or present evidence that you're speaking on behalf of others, and to clarify who is this "we" that you are describing.
Because, personally, I'm not part of your "we."
I invite you to clarify that I'm not "we," that those of us who are not "We" are not, and therefore clarify who "we" are that you happen to agree with.
Myself, I stick to speaking for myself, save when I'm specifically appointed to speak for others, or elected to. I find it saves being accused of making false claims of speaking for others, or of attempting to cloak my personal opinion and foolishness in the guise of some generic belief, or of attempting to attack the arguments of others by, again, using the straw man fallacy. YMMV, as may your preferences in arguing with straw.
I'm sorry, but the U.S. government writes the proposed resolutions, and negotiates with the other members what can pass.Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 05:39 PM
That's all you've presented here.
There was a vote from the Security Council, but let's pay no attention to the details of the resolution, how the mechanism works, who wrote it, who voted for it, what the voters said about it, because what matters is the authority of the final vote for a vague resolution.
Human Rights Watch said some vague things that don't back up the Administration's stated claims of "100,000 people" in the slightest.
And you like Juan Cole.
That's all fine, but it's not an argument.
What's your argument that we should find convincing, other than that Sapient is impressed by the Authority of these three Authorities?
Juan Cole is a guy. I'm a guy. I happen to think for myself, and I respect my own opinion on these matters at least as much as I respect his. I read him with interest, and I respect his opinions.
But I don't substitute his for mine. If you want to convince me to change my opinons, you'll have to do better than "Juan Cole has a different opinion."
Lots of people have different opinions. So what?
I find arguments, and facts, and logic, convincing, not authorities, myself. Call me wacky, but I regard myself as just as much a reasonable analyst of these matters as Juan Cole, no matter that I don't have a title and position. I've read lots and lots and lots on the relevant issues for decades.
I'm also perfectly happy to change any of my opinions when presented with good reasons, good arguments, new facts, things I hadn't thought of. And I'm perfectly happy to agree that I may be wrong: it happens all the time.
Meanwhile, though, my opinion for this minute is what it is. I'll let you know when it changes, if I have a moment.
I'll put on some pajamas if you like, except, darn, I don't have any.
[makes note to self: must buy pajamas]
This is simply the Argument From Authority.Posted by: Gary Farber | April 12, 2011 at 05:47 PM
Gary, I do trust authorities who are knowledgeable and informed. It's one reason I read (as much as I can - they're voluminous, and I don't want to devote my entire reading life to them) your work. I do think that Juan Cole has more knowledge than you do about the Middle East - he appears to have devoted his professional life to the study of Middle Eastern affairs and speaks Arabic and Persian. Perhaps you also speak those languages and have devoted your entire life to the subject, and maybe visited the countries.
Certainly you are entitled to think that the "guys" you cite, such as Steve Chapman, and the abstainer nations (not vetoers, as well they could have been), are more authoritative (since they doubted an imminent bloodbath) than are the "guys" I cite (who believe that there would have been one). Unless we have personal inside knowledge about the intent and capabilities of Qaddafi, we must rely on experts. I trust the ones I mentioned.
Other "guys" you cited, such as Alan Kuperman, certainly suggests that Obama was not being truthful about an imminent humanitarian threat. If you disagree with him on that point, why did you cite him? Since you seem to dispute my suggestion that you might be among those who think that we should never intervene, what are your criteria for intervention? I suggested that you required lots of bodies as proof. What evidence is good enough for you if it's not lots and lots of bodies?
Posted by: sapient | April 12, 2011 at 07:01 PM
"As a result of his disastrous wars, people now believe that all intervention of any kind is always wrong, even if it is to provide humanitarian assistance to people who are desperately asking for it..."
No. As a result his (perpetuated by Obama) disastrous wars we are broke and can't afford new wars.
Gary, Winds of Change...that'd do it. Marc "armed - cough cough - liberal"? Well, since he's a friend of yours........what was the name of that little hasbara 20 something year old puke that used to post USA uber alles crap over there...wore a beenie and hung out with michael ledeen, but said he wasn't jewish? I have wondered what sort of mischieve he has been up to recently.
Posted by: avedis | April 12, 2011 at 08:02 PM
A "beenie?" Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Phil | April 12, 2011 at 08:26 PM
Meanwhile, NATO is not exactly unified in approach.
Posted by: Gary Farber | April 13, 2011 at 03:04 AM
I'm just not there yet.
You will be.
Posted by: Rob in CT | April 15, 2011 at 11:26 AM